Sony announces massive 84″ 4K flat panel TV set to ship this year

The company says native 4K content will increase in availability soon enough.

Sony announced on Wednesday that it has developed an 84" 4K resolution TV that will ship later this year. The unfortunately named XBR-84X900 features a "quad full high definition" (QFHD) resolution of 3840x2160 pixels, and comes complete with a detachable 10-driver "virtual 5.1 surround sound" speaker system designed to offer a home theater experience on par with the latest digital cinema technology.

In addition to the usual networked "smart TV" features, the massive XBR-84X900 set incorporates "proprietary upscaling technology," which Sony claimed will "ensure that every frame looks clear and crisp, with a 4K resolution regardless of the content source." We're highly suspicious of those claims, but native 1080p content should scale well since QFHD is essentially "pixel doubling" of 1920x1080. Native 4K content is quite scarce outside of theatrical releases, but there are some existing sources available. And, Sony noted, digital still images look especially impressive displayed at 4K.

4K video technology has been working its way into the home for a few years, despite the slow adoption of Blu-ray and 1080p video streaming technologies. Sony launched a home 4K cinema projector last year, and we spied a couple of 4K TVs at CES in January. While a majority of consumers won't be rushing out to buy the expensive, massive displays so soon, the technology infrastructure for ubiquitous 4K video is nearly in place. Even Intel's lowly HD4000 integrated graphics chip can support 4K video resolutions, for instance. RED's 4K "Red Ray" disc player can play back compressed 4K video content shot with its digital cinema cameras. And the first-ever 4K music video (don't get too excited, it's from Sony spokesmodel Taylor Swift) is set to debut on Thursday.

"Our professional division continues to see the migration toward 4K content creation with major film and broadcast productions," Brian Siegel, vice president of Sony Electronics' TV Group, said in a statement.

Sony hasn't announced a firm availability date for the XBR-84X900, but a Sony spokesperson told Ars it should be out in time for the holidays. Pricing won't be revealed until next week, either, but you can expect it to bust your wallet—existing 80" 1080p TVs cost around $4,000.

127 Reader Comments

If BluRay uptake is low, why would 4K uptake be anything less than stagnant? Especially when the entry cost starts around a paltry $4,000.00 (wink wink nudge) and 4K media is almost nonexistent. Honestly, most people can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p given the size of the average TV set and the viewing distance in most homes. 4K res is going to be a really hard sell.

Nor has it set a price, but you can expect it to bust your wallet—existing 80" 1080p TVs cost around $4,000.

Maybe for consumers, but in industries where it is not uncommon do drop $30,000-$60,000 on full telepresence units, I doubt it's a deal breaker. And when IT has been known to commandeer 60-70" units for week long ......testing.... yeah, evaluation, this is mighty tempting to push down on the ol budget wish list. You know, for upgrades. IT=Toys. Great job.

I know that upward and onward is always the goal, but there's probably some equivalent to the Law of Diminishing Returns for tech like this.

Blu-rays are still a hard sell because many people don't notice a difference (or don't care) and won't pay extra for the discs. Now try to sell them on 4K. Good luck with that. This is nothing but a gee-whiz device. There's no practicality at this point.

Additionally, what can you get that's 4K? No TV station is going to broadcast that high. No one's going to buy Red-ray discs and players because they'd be irrelevant on any other TV. And can you imagine the download times for 4K movie torrents?

If BluRay uptake is low, why would 4K uptake be anything less than stagnant? Especially when the entry cost starts around a paltry $4,000.00 (wink wink nudge) and 4K media is almost nonexistent. Honestly, most people can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p given the size of the average TV set and the viewing distance in most homes. 4K res is going to be a really hard sell.

But BluRay is not the only source of HD contents. Many TV stations around the world are already broadcasting HD contents, so I wouldn't say that because BluRay uptake is "low" means HD is not popular.

Of course, the problem with 4K is that it's really only needed with very large screens, such as this Sony 84" TV. Right now, obviously, 84" TV is going to be very expensive. However, just around 15 years ago the first 42" plasma TV cost around US$15K. Now a 42" TV is very affordable to most people. Maybe 15 years later 84" TV could do the same.

I'm waiting for 150+ DPI full wall (say 192") displays for full telepresence applications.Oh, and of course the bandwith to conduct a full resolution meeting/dinner/party with family/friends/colleagues who live halfway around the planet.

If BluRay uptake is low, why would 4K uptake be anything less than stagnant? Especially when the entry cost starts around a paltry $4,000.00 (wink wink nudge) and 4K media is almost nonexistent. Honestly, most people can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p given the size of the average TV set and the viewing distance in most homes. 4K res is going to be a really hard sell.

80" 1080p sets are $4000. You can bet that Sony is going to up that significantly for this set. Maybe $6 - 7k.

I'd be happy with a 4k 24-30" monitor, but wouldn't bother with a TV. I guess you either have to have the source or the display to kick this game off, but I'm seeing it as a non-starter thus far.

Out of curiosity, how many watts does it takes to power this beast? Like ws3 suggested, it will be sweet someday if we get high-DPI full-wall paper-thin displays... but only if it's sensible to power them at future energy prices.

If BluRay uptake is low, why would 4K uptake be anything less than stagnant? Especially when the entry cost starts around a paltry $4,000.00 (wink wink nudge) and 4K media is almost nonexistent. Honestly, most people can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p given the size of the average TV set and the viewing distance in most homes. 4K res is going to be a really hard sell.

But BluRay is not the only source of HD contents. Many TV stations around the world are already broadcasting HD contents, so I wouldn't say that because BluRay uptake is "low" means HD is not popular.

Of course, the problem with 4K is that it's really only needed with very large screens, such as this Sony 84" TV. Right now, obviously, 84" TV is going to be very expensive. However, just around 15 years ago the first 42" plasma TV cost around US$15K. Now a 42" TV is very affordable to most people. Maybe 15 years later 84" TV could do the same.

True 1080P is still not common for TV broadcasts. I have an HD package with my cable provider. Of the 75 or so HD channels, only about 10 are at 1080. And it took 70+ years for TV stations to get here.

No one will broadcast at 4K. Remember, twice the resolution height is 4 times the data. Blu-rays aren't selling well and my internet connection wouldn't stream 4K quick enough to watch. So what's the point.

I think the reason 1080P is stagnant is because many people don't see it as worth the cost of the upgrades. It costs money to get a HD TV, a Blu-ray player, and Blu-ray discs. If people don't think it worth their money for 1080, why would they buy 4K?

If BluRay uptake is low, why would 4K uptake be anything less than stagnant? Especially when the entry cost starts around a paltry $4,000.00 (wink wink nudge) and 4K media is almost nonexistent. Honestly, most people can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p given the size of the average TV set and the viewing distance in most homes. 4K res is going to be a really hard sell.

h.265 was recently announced and claims of the same resolution at half the size could also mean double the resolution at the same size. I have to wonder if Apple’s much rumored television set and their past history of upgrading video resolution for free. If they can offer a 50" set at a reasonable price they could flip a switch and consumers would have access to a fair amount 4K content. Not helpful for video shot in 1080, but anything shot on film would benefit.

This is a non-starter in the consumer market for years. There's no content. Without a major rollout of new hardware by cable/satellite providers there's no real means of providing significant amounts of content. With data caps, Internet connections are going to choke real fast on this compared to 1080p.

It's probably got some commercial uses, but it's a long way from being mass-market ready.

Aside from the fact that it's not actually a true 4k display, most movies in the last several years have been done at 4k (and 4k DLP professional projectors have already been available - how do you think they display 4k movies ...) and virtually all others at 2k, there's definitely a source for the content and lack of displays is a limiter on them handing out the movies in some sort of 4k/2k format. Once they get enough early adopter sales, then they will mass sell 4k media and start doing crazy crap like taking something that only exists in 240i and up it to 4k.

I have a 55 inch screen, and am lucky to have a cable provider that actually transmits their HD signal at full 1080p instead of upscaling 720p in their box (which many do and call 1080p). The only failing is occasionally the bitrate can choke on certain scenes with lot's of movement, like a flock of birds.

My picture is good enough that when you are looking at the portion of the screen that the camera is focused on, your brain is often tricked into thinking the image is 3D.

I see zero need to pay top dollar to wear stupid 3D glasses, or for a resolution that complete overkill.

This is a non-starter in the consumer market for years. There's no content. Without a major rollout of new hardware by cable/satellite providers there's no real means of providing significant amounts of content. With data caps, Internet connections are going to choke real fast on this compared to 1080p.

It's probably got some commercial uses, but it's a long way from being mass-market ready.

You and many others forget that Sony owns one of the largest film companies. When they wanted 3d, guess what? Over half their output was 3D the next year. They have the unique position of creating what they want, and fast. And make a big deal out of it so competitors look stupid.

If BluRay uptake is low, why would 4K uptake be anything less than stagnant? Especially when the entry cost starts around a paltry $4,000.00 (wink wink nudge) and 4K media is almost nonexistent. Honestly, most people can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p given the size of the average TV set and the viewing distance in most homes. 4K res is going to be a really hard sell.

But BluRay is not the only source of HD contents. Many TV stations around the world are already broadcasting HD contents, so I wouldn't say that because BluRay uptake is "low" means HD is not popular.

Of course, the problem with 4K is that it's really only needed with very large screens, such as this Sony 84" TV. Right now, obviously, 84" TV is going to be very expensive. However, just around 15 years ago the first 42" plasma TV cost around US$15K. Now a 42" TV is very affordable to most people. Maybe 15 years later 84" TV could do the same.

The problem is that there isn't much of a return to be had here. First off, no satellite, cable, or over the air broadcast will ever be in 4K res. Look at the sad state of broadcasts now, where 720p and 1080i are so bit rate limited that you can often see pixelation in high motion scenes.

Third, most of what's available is purely promotional material, like what you'd find on the National Geographic channel. Stuff that's pretty niche in terms of desirability.

Fourth, 1080p even at 90" looks pretty damn sharp to most people when it comes to viewing movies and general television programming.

Outside of use as a PC monitor, I'm not seeing any real viability as a general consumer electronics device. $4,000.00 plus is pretty steep for most folks when you can easily find 720p (in some cases 1080p on special) 42"-46" sets for under $500.00. And the $4,000.00 is for 80" inch 1080p TV's. I'm guessing a 4K TV will be significantly more, limiting it to the very affluent videophile crowd.

This is a non-starter in the consumer market for years. There's no content. Without a major rollout of new hardware by cable/satellite providers there's no real means of providing significant amounts of content. With data caps, Internet connections are going to choke real fast on this compared to 1080p.

It's probably got some commercial uses, but it's a long way from being mass-market ready.

You and many others forget that Sony owns one of the largest film companies. When they wanted 3d, guess what? Over half their output was 3D the next year. They have the unique position of creating what they want, and fast. And make a big deal out of it so competitors look stupid.

And remind me. How well is 3D doing in the consumer electronics department? Basically, nobody cares outside of the movie theater.

From the time I first saw HDTV demos at CES to when reasonably priced hardware and software was widely available was a bit over 20 years. By comparison, the push to offer 4K at the high end is moving at a lightning pace. It may be many years before most of us are seriously shopping for a 4K system but when the time comes the market will be fully developed. Early adopters of HDTV went nearly a decade before things really became worthwhile and by then their equipment was hopelessly outdated with newer stuff far better for a fraction of the price.

If BluRay uptake is low, why would 4K uptake be anything less than stagnant? Especially when the entry cost starts around a paltry $4,000.00 (wink wink nudge) and 4K media is almost nonexistent. Honestly, most people can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p given the size of the average TV set and the viewing distance in most homes. 4K res is going to be a really hard sell.

No thanks, I'll wait for Panny or Sammy to intro some nice 4K plasmas. Good to see some product rolling into the market though. Whether people think it's worth it yet is irrelevant. The technology is coming whether you care or not. If it takes off where's the harm? If it fails well, again where's the harm? Never understood the reasoning behind such statements. People couldn't hardly tell the difference between 1080p and 720p (not saying I disagree) but here we are in a 1080p world. It'll progress to 4K the same way.

3840x2160 is a nice monitor resolution. I think I am going to need a bigger desk though

Seriously, this resolution is good for a standard computer monitor. The big screen is nice for general purpose computing and many games. I hope they bring the price down to merely extravagant so that there is some demand for this resolution in the consumer market and work on bringing QFHD to 40"-50" screens where the price is going to be much easier on the pocketbook and the resolution will approach *retina* level. (To lazy to do the math for that calculation, but a 40" class monitor with a *retina* display would be really nice )

I see a quick take up for CAD and similar applications where HiRes is just too crude. Followed by the food service industry looking for new ways to draw in customers with promises of "unbeatable viewing of the Big Game" (which one that is changes daily )

I can also see some interest from artists working in computer media who want to use very fine detail or work with HiRes photos in native resolution.

Actual usage as a TV will rely on 4K media availability and BD upconverting similar to what is done with DVDs on HD displays. A DVD upconverter that shows visible improvement over the current HD upconverter will also help drive this in the TV market.

LG has announced their LG 84LM9600. The LG term for this class is UDTV (Ultra Definition TV). This is also a QFHD 84" TV, price unavailable, so there will be a little competition for customers. Toshiba is said to be working on one, but no sign of a release date.

No sign of pricing guidance yet, but there is a 1920x1080 90" available for *only* $11K. Given that, I think it will be a month or two before I need that new desk to support the monitor upgrade.

I would jump at the chance to get one of these, but I wouldn't be as interested in movies as I would be in hooking up a behemoth gaming machine with a few recent cards in SLI and a wireless controller. Shit just using it for an audio workstation monitor... I'd never leave the room.

True 1080P is still not common for TV broadcasts. I have an HD package with my cable provider. Of the 75 or so HD channels, only about 10 are at 1080. And it took 70+ years for TV stations to get here.

Well, I wouldn't bet on the next standard to take 70+ years. A major hurdle of earlier attempts at HD broadcasting is the lack of bandwidth, when digital compression was not readily available. Today the situation is completely different.

Quote:

No one will broadcast at 4K. Remember, twice the resolution height is 4 times the data. Blu-rays aren't selling well and my internet connection wouldn't stream 4K quick enough to watch. So what's the point.

Of course not now, but as I said, it's certainly very possible 15 years later. The next generation video compression standard is taking shape now and aiming to provide 100% better compression efficiency compared to H.264. Further, I think 15 years later IPTV (internet based TV) is going to be much more important than either cable or over-the-air broadcasting. I don't think you are going to have the same internet connection 15 years later as today.

If BluRay uptake is low, why would 4K uptake be anything less than stagnant? Especially when the entry cost starts around a paltry $4,000.00 (wink wink nudge) and 4K media is almost nonexistent. Honestly, most people can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p given the size of the average TV set and the viewing distance in most homes. 4K res is going to be a really hard sell.

No thanks, I'll wait for Panny or Sammy to intro some nice 4K plasmas. Good to see some product rolling into the market though. Whether people think it's worth it yet is irrelevant. The technology is coming whether you care or not. If it takes off where's the harm? If it fails well, again where's the harm? Never understood the reasoning behind such statements. People couldn't hardly tell the difference between 1080p and 720p (not saying I disagree) but here we are in a 1080p world. It'll progress to 4K the same way.

No, not even remotely the same. Look at the sorry state of HD broadcasts. If cable, satellite, and over the air broadcasters can't even manage 720p without pixelation, why would anyone care about 4K res at the same bit rate (that would actually look worse than current 720p broadcasts)? The transition from 480i to 720p and 1080p was natural. Just as the transition from VHS to DVD was. It occurred because there was a visual benefit for the average user. To get any advantage from a 4K set, you'd need a gigantic set that most people could never afford. There's a reason that till now, all of the 2K and 4K devices have been projectors aimed at 200" + screens. Even at 87", 4K res is overkill.

If it makes large, hi-resolution monitors cheaper, then by all means, bring on the 4K. Everything put out now conforms to HD standards or is super expensive. Make a new stupid big standard and the monitors will follow suit.

There was a time when they charged a premium for DVD over VHS. Before that, there was a premium for purchasing VHS instead of renting, with consumers essentially paying the same as the rental store until the realized the true potential.

There was a time when DVD playback on your PC required a dedicated decoder card. No CPU or video processor (they weren't called GPUs yet) or combination had the needed performance or dedicated functionality to make it happen. Just a few years later it became a trivial issue as CPUs rapidly gained performance and the amount of additional transistors needed to offload most of the decode task to the video subsystem became a matter of nickels and dimes.

There was a time when 1080i broadcasts of live events were unheard of because the encoders just couldn't handle it fast enough for real-time, so all sports broadcasts were 720p and even those had problems. You could see this if you lived in one of the few areas where any signal was to be had. That is to say, very few of us.

Things are continuously in transition. The best gaming hardware isn't fully exploited until it is the mainstream and can deliver the numbers. By that time better stuff is at the high-end generating moans over its lack of support.

Newer and better stuff will keep coming until it matches the sensory capabilities of young consumers at a low price. When you cannot tell the difference between looking out a window and looking at your $300 wall screen, perhaps the quest for the ultimate screen will end. But that isn't going to be any year soon.

This is a non-starter in the consumer market for years. There's no content. Without a major rollout of new hardware by cable/satellite providers there's no real means of providing significant amounts of content. With data caps, Internet connections are going to choke real fast on this compared to 1080p.

It's probably got some commercial uses, but it's a long way from being mass-market ready.

You and many others forget that Sony owns one of the largest film companies. When they wanted 3d, guess what? Over half their output was 3D the next year. They have the unique position of creating what they want, and fast. And make a big deal out of it so competitors look stupid.

3d didn't exactly do all that well in the home market, but that's not my point. The problem with this is that they can't *get* the content to anybody without massive upgrades in infrastructure they don't control.

Cable companies can barely handle HD, which is why so many channels are compressed 720p or 1080i (in Canada). 4k isn't even remotely feasable on their networks until major compression improvements are available in set top boxes they're deploying, which also means they have to spend the money doing that deployment and putting the related hardware in on the back end. Until that happens Sony can put out all the 4k content it wants without people being able to see it in number.

Same problem with IPTV, in that bandwidth caps just make this unfeasable for significant use. Maybe you can squeeze it onto a blu-ray, but how many players can handle it?

There's a reason why I said its a non-starter for years, and not never. All this stuff can be overcome. Until everything else catches up, however, 4k is a niche market and maybe a novelty item for early adopters that like to show off how much money they can blow. It's not even close to being consumer market ready.